Too freekin Bad

[Frogm4n]

You have to understand. weasel wouldnt mind the US becoming a state like china or saudi arabia.
Unfortunately alot of americans see no problem with violating human rights laws as long as they do not affect people with the same skin color and religion as themselves.
Holding people for 2 years in a prison with no trial and no formal charges is quite disgusting.

[Frogm4n]

Originally posted by weaselsan
I haven't lost a damn thing.......Now what is it,Civilian mass murderer or POW, if he's a POW wheres his rank and serial number?

If they are not POW's then they should be tried in civilian courts. And held in federal prisons.

[weaselsan]

Originally posted by Frogm4n
You have to understand. weasel wouldnt mind the US becoming a state like china or saudi arabia.
Unfortunately alot of americans see no problem with violating human rights laws as long as they do not affect people with the same skin color and religion as themselves.
Holding people for 2 years in a prison with no trial and no formal charges is quite disgusting.

LOL.... the frog boy wants to play...what are they Civilians or POW's.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by weaselsan
In order to be a POW you are required to give your Name, Rank and Serial No.

What kind of cereal was in the box this was printed on?

[weaselsan]

Originally posted by Frogm4n
If they are not POW's then they should be tried in civilian courts. And held in federal prisons.

So you would give their lawers discovery......you do know what that is?

[weaselsan]

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
What kind of cereal was in the box this was printed on?

Left coast...yea I would expect you wouldn't know this simple fact.

[NUKE]

Originally posted by Frogm4n
You have to understand. weasel wouldnt mind the US becoming a state like china or saudi arabia.
Unfortunately alot of americans see no problem with violating human rights laws as long as they do not affect people with the same skin color and religion as themselves.
Holding people for 2 years in a prison with no trial and no formal charges is quite disgusting.

I kind of like the what they have done at Guantanamo myself. to the men and women at Guantanamo.

[Pei]

Whether or not they orignally detained legally or legally is not the point. Their nationality is not the point (though I note that the only US citizen to be detained under similar cirumstances is getting a proper civil trial). There men may or may not be legal combatants, they may or may not be terrorists, they may or may not have committed other crimes. The point is that we have developed systems for dealing with proof of guilt and punishment either civil or military. The reason these systems exist it to ensure that those with the power to convict and punish do not abuse these powers. In time of war military trials are accepted but even then the accused has a right to a speedy trial and the right to defend himself properly. If we cannot convict them fairly then they cannot be convicted. I cannot accept the word of a government or military official and a kangaroo court as proof of guilt. This is because it allows for detention, conviction and punishment as a matter of policy rather than a matter of justice. Even if that policy is protection it is still not acceptable. It is even more heinous if it is a policy of revenge and public opinion. Detention, conviction and punishment as goverment policy is tyranny.

The 200 people killed in Madrid were murdered. The 3000 killed in New York were murdered. The 38 people killed at Omagh were murdered. The 270 killed at Lockerbie were murdered.  The 6 million who died in the Nazi death camps in WWII were murdered. Murder is both a civil and military crime. It should be procecuted according to the appropriate laws. Terrorism is not a separate crime: it is the act of commiting a crime or crimes in order to terrorize a goup of people into acting in certain ways. The use of the word terrorism should not give the government carte blanche to do what it likes (which is what many goverments in the western world seem to be doing).

While the prisoners in Cuba are the most obvious example of this trend, there are many other. The UK is currently holding a number of supsected terrorists without trial. The laws introduced in 2001  were made to allow this, and the latest suggestions by the Home Secretary are even worse. I also think that the UK and other goverments with citizens in custody there are more than happy to let the US do their dirty work for them and take the blame.

For centuries the course of politcal development in western countries (and the US and UK in particular) has been towards stonger civil law and limitation or arbitary excercise of powere by the state. Current goverments are using the word terrorism to reverse this. I am extremely worried by this.

[weaselsan]

Originally posted by Pei
Whether or not they orignally detained legally or legally is not the point. Their nationality is not the point (though I note that the only US citizen to be detained under similar cirumstances is getting a proper civil trial). There men may or may not be legal combatants, they may or may not be terrorists, they may or may not have committed other crimes. The point is that we have developed systems for dealing with proof of guilt and punishment either civil or military. The reason these systems exist it to ensure that those with the power to convict and punish do not abuse these powers. In time of war military trials are accepted but even then the accused has a right to a speedy trial and the right to defend himself properly. If we cannot convict them fairly then they cannot be convicted. I cannot accept the word of a government or military official and a kangaroo court as proof of guilt. This is because it allows for detention, conviction and punishment as a matter of policy rather than a matter of justice. Even if that policy is protection it is still not acceptable. It is even more heinous if it is a policy of revenge and public opinion. Detention, conviction and punishment as goverment policy istyranny.

The 200 people killed in Madrid were murdered. The 3000 killed in New York were murdered. The 38 people killed at Omagh were murdered. The 270 killed at Lockerbie were murdered.  The 6 million who died in the Nazi death camps in WWII were murdered. Murder is both a civil and military crime. It should be procecuted according to the appropriate laws. Terrorism is not a separate crime: it is the act of commiting a crime or crimes in order to terrorize a goup of people into acting in certain ways. The use of the word terrorism should not give the government carte blanche to do what it likes (which is what many goverments in the western world seem to be doing).

While the prisoners in Cuba are the most obvious example of this trend, there are many other. The UK is currently holding a number of supsected terrorists without trial. The laws introduced in 2001  were made to allow this, and the latest suggestions by the Home Secretary are even worse. I also think that the UK and other goverments with citizens in custody there are more than happy to let the US do their dirty work for them and take the blame.

For centuries the course of politcal development in western countries (and the US and UK in particular) has been towards stonger civil law and limitation or arbitary excercise of powere by the state. Current goverments are using the word terrorism to reverse this. I am extremely worried by this.

All that you say has been debated ad nausium. We are unfortunately in a unique situation. If this were a conventional conflict, rules of war would apply such as the geneva convention, and other International laws. We are not in a conventional conflict. The Geneva Convention doesn't apply because they are not legal combatants. They cannot be tried as civilians because of the rules of evidence, The simple act of providing discovery to the defense would compromise national security by giving the terrorists information on who, what, when where and how our CIA operates. Incidently the CIA cannot investigate within the U.S. Any evidence provided by the CIA would be inadmissable. The way our legal system is structured any terrorist tried in open court would walk. The one US citizen that went to court did not go on trial. He pled quility to avoid the charge of Treason and face a possible sentence of death or life in prison. The one terrorist that we have on trial has been in custody for over 2 years and we can't proceed with the trial because of discovery issues. I really hate to say this, but I believe some people in this forum would have considered the breaking of the enigma code an invasion of privacy.

[weaselsan]

Originally posted by GScholz
Pei. My thoughts (and fears) exactly.

You continue to have happy thoughts up there in the Northlands Scholtz. We'll continue to take care of business down here.

By the way there is no declared war, therefore no geneva convention. If we declared war on, say.. Afganistan we could have wiped it of the map. What part of my post that said the Geneva conventions doesn't apply don't you understand?

[weaselsan]

Originally posted by GScholz
The problem isn't that you're taking care of "business" down there. The problem is that your taking your "business" elsewhere too.

Your Anti-American is showing a little...What a really scary word.
Hegemony. It means One Super Power.

[weaselsan]

Originally posted by GScholz
What part of you're and ignorant idiot do you not understand?

WOW that cold air really affects your brain...Which Country are we at war with, please let us know so we can get down to business. By the way please pick one with a lot of oil ...you know us Americans and oil..he he

[weaselsan]

Originally posted by GScholz
The prisoners held are mostly from your war with Afghanistan and Iraq. That you don't know that is not surprising.

No declared war on either, by the way ...

 Article 17

Every prisoner of war, when questioned on the subject, is bound to give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this, equivalent information. If he wilfully infringes this rule, he may render himself liable to a restriction of the privileges accorded to his rank or status.

Each Party to a conflict is required to furnish the persons under its jurisdiction who are liable to become prisoners of war, with an identity card showing the owner's surname, first names, rank, army, regimental, personal or serial number or equivalent information, and date of birth. The identity card may, furthermore, bear the signature or the fingerprints, or both, of the owner, and may bear, as well, any other information the Party to the conflict may wish to add concerning persons belonging to its armed forces. As far as possible the card shall measure 6.5 x 10 cm. and shall be issued in duplicate. The identity card shall be shown by the prisoner of war upon demand, but may in no case be taken away from him.

[weaselsan]

Originally posted by GScholz
You are beyond reasoning. Say hello to Martlet and Steve.

Didn't know about article 17..required name date of birth serial number I.D. Card..etc....One last closing factoid the war in Iraq was simply a continuation of the conflict of 91. The Iraqis where in repeated violation of the 91 cease fire. In order to prevent the total destruction of the Iraqi armed forces they agreed to a cease fire that included a (No Fly Zone) in both the north and south areas of Iraq. They repeatedly violated the cease fire agreement by fireing on coalition aircraft. 91 conflict resumed, Sadass crawled in a hole. End of story.

[NUKE]

Originally posted by GScholz
Pei. My thoughts (and fears) exactly.

dont fear just because you are weak.